If you like what you see, consider supporting me on Patreon, every single $ helps: patreon.com/mhv/ If you want to know more about how the Panzerwaffe performed in Poland, check out this video: ruclips.net/video/_1BmJ_GF97w/видео.html
thanks, yeah, I got a bit "bored" with my old design and since I think my script-writing had reached a new level around Operation Olympic & Rommel, I thought I put some "Schwerpunkt" on the visuals now. Since they are quite time-consuming they weren't previous possible.
Military History Visualized Hey, I just wanted to point out a mistranslation in many of your videos. You keep saying "suspectable" instead of "susceptible". That first word doesn't exist in English, but apparently a literal translation would be "verdachtig". The second one, "susceptible" is the word you're looking for. That one translates to "anfallig". There are some other weird translations, but this is the one you do most often, so I just wanted to point it out. Keep making great videos!!!
About the strategic choice of the Polish commander, I recently read a Google book about it, it was a political choice which he knew was poor. He had to defend the whole western border to reassure the government and the western population of Poland, also so that France and the United Kingdom would not have an excuse to not intervene as the Polish could be regarded as unwilling to fight against the Germans. He, however, only assigned lighter and less experienced divisions to the least relevant areas, and as we well know now, neither France nor the United Kingdom turned out to have any interest to actually do anything about Germany.
Jao Jao untenable position likely and france’s manpower shortage was acute already and everyone knew what was gonna happen next Not to mention the Arm de la air (some Frenchie is gonna blast me for that) could not hope to even defend against the Luftwaffe let alone commit an incursion into germany
Lynex slightly off Denmark wasn’t invaded for a springboard it was invaded simultaneously, also the mining operation didn’t trigger the Norway invasion, in fact both groups, Task Force 2 and HMS Glowworm apart of the mining operation ran into each other
@@IanHutchings_KTF The French advance halted because the tank's fuel tankers were all horse drawn and was failing to keep up. They also advanced way ahead of their heavy artillery cover, which couldn't keep up. French heavy artillery was mainly drawn by oxen. The French army wasn't equipped for mobile warfare.
I will rely on Polish books "PzKpfw III Ausf. A-D" and "PzKpfw III Aufs. E-H " by Janusz Ledwoch (ISBN 9788372193537 and 9788372193759). According to him 33-34 PzKpfw III Ausf E took part in fights against Poland. The rest were older variants A-D. E variant suffered from reliability issues (faulty gearbox) and roughly 1/3 of them couldn't take part in combat to full extent. Out of 26 tanks lost only 3 were of E variant (9% of all Ausf E tanks). A-D models had thin armour so it might be a good explanation why they suffered quite high losses. Ledwoch also gave some information about distribution of those tanks amongst various units. 1. Panzer-Division had 26 Ausf A-D tanks (20 in the 1St Regiment and 6 in 2nd Regiment) and it lost 11 of them. As far as I know this division was part of 10th Army and it was one of main units sent towards Warsaw so those tanks were used against main Polish units defending the city. Since those tanks had guns capable of firing HE shells they were more likely to be used at the spearhead of the assault. Combined with weak armour this would mean high losses. 2.Panzer-Division had 6 Ausf. B-C tanks. This unit took part in fights in Souther Poland- they fought against Polish 10th Motorized Cavalry Brigade, one of few Polish units equipped with tanks (Vickers E in this case). 5. Panzer Division had 3 Ausf D tanks, 10. Panzer Division had 3 B and C tanks. Ledwoch also mentioned that amongst 26 lost tanks 7 were not completely destroyed but they were damaged beyond repair and had to be written off.
Such a high percentange of total losses of Panzer III during September campaign are often explained by the fact that they were deployed as a spearhead of attacking units. Notice that none of Pz-Bef III were lost completly, 13 of those were damaged but all of them repaired after campaign - so the tank with almost the same armour as ordinary PzIII but deployed in a different way did not suffered such a losses.
well, I guess the last one means "Schiesslehrgang", sounds more like a training unit and it would be exactly that 11. I skipped the number of the "Ersatzheer" (Replacement Army) and those were according to my sources 11. So yeah, technically the "Feldheer" and the "Ersatzheer" would make up all tanks, but I don't know how many of the "Ersatzheer" were used, thus I stated in the video tanks in the field army in Poland in this way I am still correct :) Since I have no data on the "Ersatzheer", of course some of the losses might be from the Ersatzheer too, but I would say that level of accuracy is a bit too crazy for RUclips videos.
Oh yes, my bad, I added extra "l" (excuse me but my knowledge of german is rudimentary at best and I did not noticed it visually but I should coz at least I know what "schiessen" means). Yes, it was an training unit which was deployed in Poland campaign and I must correct myself once again: I listed all 11 Pz. III which was at Schesslergang disposal but according to Jentz only 4 of them was used in this campaign. This unit composition was as follows: 8 * Pz.. I 10 * Pz. II 4 * Pz. III
Ted SCSI that's pretty much the conclusion i came up with too. Pz III's moved to daring forward positions, while pz IV's with their short 75mm guns stayed back as artillery support. It would be interesting to see individual platoon formations & battlefield tactics battle per battle throughout the Polish campaign to clarify this.
You have to laugh at RUclips algorithm, the "Up Next" suggested video is Wolter's World, "Visiting Poland - The Don'ts of Poland". Maybe invasion with a panzer army is one of those don'ts?
Speaking of which: while I don't think it is meaningful talking about Poland's prowess vs. the Wehrmacht, one has to admit that your attack from Kahlenberg indeed taught those Moors a lesson. Well done on that. ...Even though HRE infantry already had fought their way to the Turkish command hill and were slowly turning the stalemate to a Muslim meat grinder.... So the greatest cavalry charge inhuman history being only a win-more move does take away from its tactical value, but not from its sheer grandeur - so, still, kudos to those brave chicken knights. Or what are these feathers for?!
Germany can into Poland. Seriously, though, Poland tried to mobilize France to invade Germany, jointly, before the invasion of Poland. France didn't go for it, and the rest is history. Poland fought as well as they could, but there is only so much you can do against superior numbers of modernized war machines and well trained soldiers.
Around half--a--dozen Polish generals left the Polish military in protest of the "self--promotion" of Rydz--Smigly to the rank of the Marshal of Poland and the head of the Polish armed forces. In spite of the flaws as a commander-in-chief, Rydz-Smigly did start necessarily slow modernization of the Polish armed forces in 1935. The Polish deployment of the forces to every corner of Western Poland was caused by the slow curving of Czechoslovakia. It ended up curved out of existence. However, Marshal Rydz--Smigly did overdo it. General Władysław Bortnowski in charge of the army defending the Polish (Kashubian) Corridor as soon as the plan was drawn two weeks before the war, even before his army got mobilized and deployed, started sending requests to the Polish High Command to allow him to move two infantry divisions and one cavalry brigade out of the very corridor. Bortnowski was right. All the above--mentioned units were destroyed and he lost 1/3rd of his army. Bortnowski has to be noted for subordinating himself to another general in charge of another army, General Kutrzeba and making the Battle of Bzura (Kutno) possible. Coming back to the issue of defending every inch of Poland. Getting 15,000 of the Coastal Defence infantry stuck by Gdynia sea port was another unwise decision of Rydz-Smigly. The defensive works in the area could be manned by no more than 5,000 soldiers. The biggest mistake of Rydz-Smigly was not securing the path of retreat into the Romanian Bridgehead as well as not defending the very bridgehead from the Soviet aggression. When the Poles could not afford to fight both the Germans and the Soviets, they could have gotten ready to defend a relatively small area of the very bridgehead. The before mentioned two infantry division, one cavalry brigade, and 10,000 Coastal Defence infantry could have been deployed at Piotrkow Trybunalski, Tomaszow Lubelski, Lviv (Lwow), and Stryj. Polish Minister Beck argued before the very war that Lviv should become a secondary capital of Poland and a military stronghold in the case of war. As to the Western Allies, they should have not allowed for the Czechoslovak equipment and the military factories to fall into the Germans hands. Poland definitely could have used the Czechoslovak tank and armored car factories as well as 244 Czechoslovak LT-35 tanks as well as 27 LT-34 tanks as well as 40 tankettes and other military equipment.
Well Czechoslovakia could use them at first. And it also could produce hundreds of another ones in the year between 38 and 39. The production lines were ready, it was all stopped after Munich and later started again by Germans. Poland sadly played its role in destruction of Czechoslovakia, and the question is, did they have a map in Polish general staf and ministry of foreign affairs, when they sided Germans in 1938 Czechoslovak crisis?
@@tomfu6210 they didn't sided per se. Confilct over this region was overall dating 1919, when Czechoslovakia used the fact, that whole Polish army was fighting soviets and take Zaolzie without a fight. Polish side did kinda the same in 1938. Was it correct move? Not much, but at the same time, it's hard to blame polish governmant for it.
Well done sir - also the refusal by Beck et. al. to create arms caches throughout the country to provide for guerilla/partisan actions. There was an effort but it was not started until early Summer 1939
Question about the Polish tanks: Poland had around 120 single--turret 9.9 ton 7Tp or PT-7 tanks that were the development of Vickers E 6 tons (by 1939, twin turret version was used only in the training companies). The Polish tanks had Bofors 37 MM AT and Polish Gundlach's telescope*. Moreover, Poles operated around 50 Renault R.35 which they judged inferior to the Polish design before the Polish Defensive War in 1939, and inferior to even Vickers E 6 tons after the very campaign. Poles used a couple dozen of Vickers E 6 tons as well. In addition, the Poles used FT-17 either as tanks or in barricades. The most numerous Polish armoured vehicle was a tankette (over 500), but only a couple dozen was built with 20 mm 38FK antitank autocannon. In addition, the Poles used some armoured cars.*--Known in Great Britain as Vickers Tank Periscope MK.IV and in the Soviet Union as MK-4 and used by other armies. It was allowing 360--degree view without the need to turn around.
I think I now understand why people stopped putting machine guns on tanks as their main armament. Tanks want to deal with things that threaten them first, and It'd never occurred to me that a machine gun is a poor weapon to attack field guns or anti-tank riffles. A very interesting video. Now I'm curious about the evolution of tanks through the war.
They still use machineguns today though. The Abrams for example has a coax and a loader's crew-served 7.62mm 240 with a .50 cal M2 for the tank commander's crew-served weapon.
True, but notice I specified "Main Armament". The Panzer I's were armed only with machines guns. British called wwi tanks "male" or "female" depending on whether they had a heavy gun or not.
Yes I did notice you had specified that, but I suppose I should've prefaced my statement with; "Going on personal experience as a former armor crewmen, I would say that tanks do tend to use their MGs over maingun more often. Granted, again, this is speaking from personal experience, but one of the crew-served MGs would usually engage/suppress enemy infantry with AT weaponry as modern main-gun rounds for tanks are more for the purpose of defeating enemy armor and light-armor vehicles. However vs mass infantry the Abrams does use canister rounds and HEAT still works against say infantry-AT hiding in a building, but in terms of anti-infantry purposes the crew-served and coax MG are used. What you pointed out however is very true, and also if you think about it, the main armament of a tank seems to have been the final deciding factor as to what is and is not a tank amongst various AFVs. Something like a PzI would be more akin to a modern IFV than a proper tank, to put this more into perspective.
I strongly disagree in your statement that the PzKfw I would be more akin to a modern IFV than a proper tank. The PzKfw I only carried a crew of two, and had no space to carry additional personnel under armor, whereas a modern IFV can carry both its crew (driver, TC, gunner and loader) along with additional dismountable passengers. Depending upon what you want to do with the vehicle, a tank (such as the PzKfw I) armed only with machine guns can be very useful. The PzKfw I was designed as a training tank, and it was only used in combat simply because the army expanded faster then tank production could keep up. But the British had some good success in battle during the 1930's (and possibly during the 1920's as well) using tanks armed only with machine guns against poorly armed tribal warriors in Africa and/or India.
Ulric Kessler... well, keep in mind that, even early in the war, infatry used some improvised close combat weapons agains tanks. A determined infatryman with a Molotov cockteil, a satchel charge or even with an iron bar, could disable a tank. Later on they had various magnetic mines, Panzerfaust and Panzerschrenk. That's why, although main armament grew bigger and more powerful, MG's were still a must for any tank. You can't clear the infantry attacking at close range your mate's tank by shooting at them with a 75 mm projectile. Remember what's happened to Elefants at Kursk. They had no MG's :)
It is possible that the high losses of the Panzer III were caused by the German tactic of deploying heavier tanks in front of the lighter tanks during an attack against the Polish artillery positions. The Panzer IV's frontal armour was more capable of surviving hits from the Polish Bofors 37 mm cannons and 75 field guns shooting stop--a-gap anti-tank rounds. Also, the Polish anti-tank rifle's bullet was designed to disintegrate and transfer the energy causing spalling inside the tank. The fact that they could penetrate the armour of the Panzer I and Panzer II was not optimal.
Have you considered making an in-depth video about the Battle of Wizna? Also theatrically referred to as "The Polish Battle of Thermopylae"? I think your meticulous attention to facts and detail on this specific battle would result in a very interesting video about the effects and end results of that battle in particular.
For the Panzer III, check out armour thickness vs AT rounds. The Pzr 3 was used like IV but had weaker armour, so got banged up more. Note: it was shorter ranged I stand to be corrected.
Gianluca Borg It could be a matter of armor as you say, in addition I think that since the Panzer III was intended with an anti-tank role rather than infantry suport as the Panzer IV, it may have faced the few polish tanks that were operational as well as anti-tank artillery
The armor of Panzer IVs and IIIs that operated in Poland was the same, both 30mm thick. The higher losses happened because it was used more against other tanks and AT guns, while the Panzer IV was more of a infantry support tank and faced AT rifles rather thank AT guns. That would also explain why the Panzer 38t had higher losses than the Panzer IV.
As I said, I stood to be corrected. as I was clearly mistaken on the armour fact however, I was correct on it being used as the Panzer kampfwagen IV while it's statistically not suitable for its role. Worthy to be noted is that the T-34 was feared more by Pzr 4's not as much 3's for 3 was more limited
I know. The Panzer III were used in the spearhead often, followed by pz38, pzII and pzIV, while the pzI and pz35 were involed rather rarely in the heavy battles. The reason is that PanzerIII were already considered to be the best german tanks with the best crews and were used extensively and in the most dangerous advances into enemy territory.
a lot is sometimes made of the Polish pattern 35 AT rifle, but in reality it wasn't widely distributed amongst the infantry units and they often lacked proper training with the weapon, so it couldn't really turn the tide in any significant way
The purpose of relocating Polish forces alongside whole western border was to show to France and Britain that 'we are defending' because those countries were obligated to help Poland only when it will defend against agressors. Rydz-Śmigły wanted those countries to have 'no doubt' about it. That is why he made such a stupid decision instead of relocating the army on the Wehrmacht's main offensive directions. It was political decision. Unfortunetly France and Britain never came. You should mention that this was political decision in the video. For now, it looks like he was pretty stupid commander which is not true.
T(h)anks for another enjoyable video. For a future topic: How about a video about tank development and design by various nations during the inter war period. Both from a technological PoV and from the PoV of combat doctrine at the time (ok, that's more like 2 videos)?
Answer: The 3's were more often at the front of the van as they were more capable for multirole as well as 'schwerpunkt' shock power at the point of attack to force a breakthrough... they were also more reliable and as they presented a thin armored side or rear target for echeloned Polish troops while they broke through and fanned out - they tended to have a higher casualty rate.
The Panzer III in Poland and France aswell were typically at the front of the Zugkiel (Platoon Wedge) it which the more armored tanks were at the front and tanks like Panzer II were on the flanks of the Kiel. And the Befehl Panzer was second to the left of the first Panzer. Panzer would advance in the form of the Catapilliar-like (Raupenartig) when moving up during attack and being covered at all times. Source: Panzer Tactics - German Small-Unit Armor Tactics In WW2 by Wolfgang Schneider
Peter Jolley that and a lot of early models still used 15mm armor thickness on all sides especially in Poland which later models would have the armor thickness thickened
I disagree strongly with your assertion that the Panzer I and Panzer II were intended only for training. If this had been the case, why were they constructed with real homogeneous armour plate? Why not build them out of mild steel, which was much cheaper? Like the first 2 Neubaufahrzeug prototypes? In actual fact, the German Army initially ordered 150 training versions of the Panzer I, followed by 1,000 of the combat-ready version (the Ausf. A). Only 15 out of 150 training versions (without turrets) were actually delivered before production switched to the Ausf A, of which 800 were built. Finally 684 of the improved Ausf B model were built, along with 200+ of the command tank version. It was a superior fighting machine to the Italian and Polish tankettes that were its contemporaries. The Panzer II was also a combat-ready tank. Even the 125 pre-series, the Ausf a, b, and c. The Wehrmacht interpretation of a training tank is one that is considered unfit for combat. The Panzer I did not fall into that category, as it was sent into combat in Spain, Poland, Norway, the Low Countries, France, the Balkans, North Africa and Russia, up until late 1941. The Panzer II was still in service in 1945.
@Ricardo VS they would if nothing else would be available for production by the time the war started. Panzer I was definitely intended for combat. It was a stopgap yes but you don't order 3000 tanks with RHA for training purposes only.
Ricardo VS Do you know what a Tankette is? Or is that just another word for tank to you? This is the 1930s where the most you can get for fast firing tanks is a 20mm cannon. You also didn’t disprove why they would use Rolled Homogenous Steel over Mild Steel if they were training tanks.
Ricardo VS lol okay Guderian, any more myths you want to peddle? ‘Test’ tanks that blasted their way through Poland and France, oh by the way as expensively as they could’ve made a tank they did, the Panzer 1 had nickel enriched armor, with fully functional turrets! “You don’t need those for drivers training” -An author I forget, to put the final nail in the coffin of this ridiculous statement, why would the “Training” tank use the MG13ks, and not the MG34s, like every tank after? Surely it would be better to train the crew with the expected machine gun, but no, the Panzer 1 had 13ks, because they were super reliable compared to the 34, which made them good in the machine gun only tank for......combat
Panzer-Division Kempf lose almost all of there Panzers III and have the bigest loses of all German Panzer Division in 1939. It can be answer, why number of PzIII was so big
It can be answer, why they mourderd Polish PoW. The massacre might have been a revenge for the Battle of Mława, which cost the Germans an entire infantry division, and where Panzer Division Kempf lost 72 tanks in spite of using Polish civilians as human shields chased in front of their tanks.
Interesting I know that the panzer III suffered from mechanical issues during the campaign. In the book History of the Panzerwaffe volume 1 1939-1942. It gives a after action report of 1st leichte division on the technical state of panzerregiment 11. These are the percentage of each type of tank that are considered operational as of 4th of October 1939. 80% of Pzkpfw II, 44% of Pzkpfw III, 75% of Pzkpfw IV. It doesn't show the amount of Pzkpfw Is that are operational assuming that they had some In the regiment.
Susceptible is pronounced "Sus-sept-eh-bal." Thoroughly enjoyed this video as well as all of your other work. Looking forward to more excellent content. Thank you for all that you do!
Invasion of half of the Poland, do not forget it. Dozens of tanks and amrored vehicles were distroyed by polish armored trains, witch did suprisingly well (according to book "Polskie pociągi pancerne 1939"). Also lets not forget about PZL 23 Karaś bomber and 133 (fiew?) 7-TP tank (37mm canon). So not only anti tank rifle and guns.
id say they probably positioned the pz3's forward, meaning that they were first hit, the pzIV's allowed to counter battery, and smaller lighter tanks like the 38t not used up front because hey, they're lightly armored.
From other panzer books I read, panzer III was assigned to be the tank destroyer in the early phase of the war, due to its higher velocity armor piercing shells, which also means it would have higher rates to get knocked out. Early Panzer IV with short barrel was used for infantry support facing less opponent tanks.
I imagine that the panzer III was the "main battle tank" in terms of modernity and effectiveness. So it follows that they would have been put to more extensive use against in the front line engagements at the points of schwerpunkt etc. The logic being if you have 1000 panzer IVs and 150 panthers then likely you would be using the panthers whenever possible at the the decisive points. thus if they are engaged more there is more likely a chance of damage and more likely to find significant enemy resistance at those decisive points.
The majority of Panzer IIIs that saw service in Poland were B, C, and D models. B and C had 15mm armor all around. The D model received an upgrade to 30 mm armor in the turret (most specifically the new commanders cupola), but hull armor remained 15 mm. The E model was upgraded to 30 mm all around the hull, but the Germans had limited numbers of these. The introduction of the E model allowed them to increase the tanks in the 1st platoon of the light tank companies from 3 to 5 during the Polish campaign. However, all of these models were plagued with problems beyond just the inadequate armor and firepower. A-D models were all very limited production runs that ended quickly due to suspension issues the Germans were aware of before the Polish campaign. The E didnt just introduce the 30 mm armor, however. It's increased weight from 16 to 19 tons necessitated what wound up being the final suspension revision/conversion to torsion bar and 6 road wheels, a new engine and transmission, and a new manufacturer. Previous models had only been manufactured by Daimler-Benz, while Henschel and MAN were brought in to increase production of the E. These changes led to a lot of issues early on with the transmissions in particular. [Tucker-Jones, A. (2017). Panzer III: Hitler's Beast of Burden. Pen and Sword.] I wouldnt put too much stock into the theory that Germans used the Panzer III more aggressively/inappropriately than they did the Panzer IIs leading to increase loss rate. There wouldnt have been any reason for them to say "Hold on, anti tank gun up ahead. Panzer IIs hold back, we need the Panzer IIIs lack of increased armor and inability to fire HE shells to take this thing out." All of the B-D models were pulled from action immediately following the Polish campaign, though a handful of Ds were temporarily put back into service again in northern France. It is much more likely that increased rate of mechanical failure over the II- combined with similarly ineffective armor, increased size, and less mobility, led to the increased loss rate of Panzer IIIs.
Can you make a video about how the land lease program contributed to the Soviet victory on the eastern front? Always interested to know if Soviet could still win without the support of its allied.
Wars aren't won with weapons alone. Russia only produced about 60,000 trucks 41-45. No need to produce more, as the USA provided about 360,000 and that allowed for large scale, deep penetrations and encirclements. Add to this thousands of locomotives and rolling stock not to mention food and things like rail tracks with which to build and repair railways essential to war. Red Army was largely fed by America. Add to this telephone wire and phones, medical tools and medicines etc and it's a good question, I've asked him the same recently. Does he think Russia could have reached Berlin first without it? I have my doubts but Russia obviously played its importance down post war and unfortunately with that its a subject I myself would like to find a really good book on but have yet to do so but I know it was very substantial and did make a big difference. Not to diminish Soviet efforts. Despite the war its impressive that they also managed to lay down thousands of miles of new track, cultivate ten of thousands of previously uncultivated land, open new mines, evacuate millions of wagons worth of machinery and the staff to operate them but aid, it allowed them to concentrate on producing tanks and guns and might well have saved them from starvation. Workers do not work and soldiers fight when starving to death.
The USA supplied 500,000 tons of a new surface hardened rail-line to replace tracks damaged by the Germans as they abandoned territory. Half the aluminum in Soviet aircraft was supplied under lend lease. Canada supplied brass to replace production lost due to the invasion and used in everything from brass bushes in T'38's to bullet casings. All 50,000 amphibious vehicles where US made.
6:40 based on your discussion with Chieftain a very interesting data would be not just the Panzers lost but the Panzer crews lost. Was this just equipment or was this trained manpower that was hard to replace? What was the percentage of crews successfully bailing out? That would be very interesting to see.
This is what i could find regards p3 losses: According Panzertruppen. The Complete Guide to the Employment Creation & Combat Force of Germany's Tank 1939-45, the units with a large number of Pz Kw III were: the PR 1 with 20 tanks (some Ausf E.?) And the Pz. Lehr Abt. with 37 (most of them Ausf. E?). Now according Panzertruppen. The Complete Guide to the Employment Creation & Combat Force of Germany's Tank 1939-45. the losses, due to failures or enemy action, for the Pz Kw III of all models (period from 1 till 25 Sep 1939) reported by each army amounted to: 3. AOK: 5 tanks; 10. AOK: 11 tanks; 14. AOK: 3 tanks. A total of 19 tanks. The division which lost more Pz Kw III was the 1. Pz with 11 tanks. But little later he explained that after a reasessment the total losses of Pz KW III were 26 tanks.
I might be mistaken but i remember that the German Army used many of early Panzer III variants in the Polish Campaign (Ausf. A-D). These versions were developed to try out new suspension types and not intended for combat. These vehicles had very thin armor but lacked the heavy gun of early PzKpfw IV. Since they were test versions, there might also have been a number of mechanical failures with the suspensions? It would explain why the "final" version, Ausf E., had a completely different suspension than the previous 4 versions.
I actually studied Military history under Robert Citino, he's a wonderful professor and his work in military history is beyond measure. I whole heartily recommend all his books, especially those about the Arab-Israeli Conflicts.
I remember reading that field commanders preferred using the Mark III over that of other AFVs because of their superior maneuverability, size and reliability. It could be a case of overuse that decimated their numbers.
I seem to recall Von Luck talking about the invasion of Poland. I believe he said something about the Pz 3s having to do most of the heavy lifting as the 1s and 2s were quite ineffective. I know Guderien didn't like the Czech tanks as the steel they were made from was quite brittle compared to the German made rolled steel.
The Panzer III models used in the Polish Campaign were earlier production models from Panzer III Ausf. A to D I believe. Many of them had severe reliability problems due to experimental technological attempts, such as the unrefined torsion bar suspension. Tanksarchives has great in-depth evaluations of these earlier models. Links: tankarchives.blogspot.fi/2017/01/pzkpfwiii-ausf-christie-german-style.html tankarchives.blogspot.fi/2017/01/pzkpfwiii-ausf-b-d.html
well, unreliability could explain a few losses, but unless they were exploding it doesn't explain the high number of total write-offs, since for the Germans that basically meant a destroyed tank.
Total write-offs can be explained by the troops stripping tanks for parts and as these earlier models used parts which were not compatible with later models, the earlier ones would be just written off and be done with them. For example Panzer III A was only fielded during Polish Campaign and didn't see action after that.
I wonder if the losses in P3 were due to the fact that they were relatively numerous and would be used more readily as they were considered the best option. The P1 & 2s were already known to be vulnerable so you send in your best available tank, the P3? Just a thought.
I dont understad why to use the chasis of a same vehicle for making diferent vehicles with the same role. For example,the Panzer 38(t) to the Hetzer and the Marder III. Explanation?
4:40 Der Panzer II C hat standardmäßig 15mm Frontpanzerung. Allerdings gab es C und selbst A und B Modelle mit 30mm Frontpanzerung. Theoretisch sollte es sogar Erprobungsserien-Fahrzeuge mit 30mm Panzerung geben. Bis zur Ausf. C war die verstärkte Frontpanzerung ein Nachtrüstungssatz/Umbau für fertige Modelle. Ab Modell D und E war die stärkere Frontpanzerung serienmäßig. Mit Modell F wurde die Panzerung auf 35mm verstärkt. Der Panzer II wurde ursprünglich als Landwirtschaftlicher Schlepper 100 (LAS100) produziert. Erprobungsserien waren mit kleinen Buchstaben versehen. Serie 1/LAS100 bestand aus 3 Produktionsreihen Fahrgestellnr 20001 - 20025, benannt SdKfz 121 Ausführung a1 Fahrgestellnr 20026 - 20050 Ausführung a2 Fahrgestellnr 20051 - 20100 Ausführung a3 Serie 2/LAS100 Ausführung b, Fahrgestellnr 21001 - 21100 Serie 3/LAS100 Ausführung c, Endserie der Entwicklung, Fahrgestellnr 21101 - 23000 (Enthält die folgenden Produktionsserien 4/LAS100 Ausführung A, 5/LAS100 Ausführung B, 6/LAS100 Ausführung C, 7/LAS100 Ausführung F) Alle Fahrzeuge der Ausführungen a1-3, b, c, A, B, C waren standardmäßig mit der leichten ca 15mm Panzerung versehen. Allerdings wurde bereits ~1936 während der Produktionsreihe 2/LAS100 Ausf. b der Nachrüstungsauftrag auf 30mm Frontpanzerung für LAS100 Modelle erteilt. Ausführungen D und E, bez. Schnellkampfwagen, verwendeten andere Fahrgestelle, hießen daher 8/LAS 138 in der Produktion und waren von Werks her bereits mit der 30mm Panzerung versehen. Quelle u.A.: "Die Deutschen Panzer 1926 - 1945" Senger und Etterlin
danke!! nice, das Buch hatte damals und die haben auch ein Buch über die Geschütze geschrieben... und guter Verlag. Werd ich mir wohl nochmal bestellen müssen.
np, hab beide Bücher hier. Die technischen Details sind großartig, wobei das Panzerbuch deutlich mehr ins Detail geht, gerade was Produktion und Entwicklung angeht.
Specific targeting of panzer III makes sense. Especially when the German army had a lack of panzer IV to deal with PAK. When you lack the weapon best suited to take out an enemy position, you select the second best option. In this case this would have been the panzer III, so the Germans would send their panzer III out to destroy the PAK and the Polish PAK would know the threat and specifically target the panzer III.
Wow, I wanted to you to address this issue and here we are. You've read my mind. A couple of points. 1. 3472 as total number of tanks in the German army. Where were the remaining? Training units? Were many of these types unarmed training variants? I have met the number of around 3200 before (do you know if command tanks were not counted twice?) 2. The number of write-offs seems to be the biggest mystery in the universe. We have a number of problems here: Firstly: What period are we dealing with? I have heard a suggestion that Jentz's details only account for the write offs until 25th September. When were the decisions on write offs taken? It might be entirely possible that many tanks were classified as such only after the end of hostilities. Secondly: What is a write off in this context? A tank that is impossible to repair or a tank that is deemed to uneconomic to repair? Perhaps the true number increased due to the latter? 3. According to sources the number of German tanks available for the invasion of France was some 200-300 less than for the invasion of Poland. Now, German industry produced probably around 900 tanks in that period which would be more than enough to cover the losses. In theory we should also have some 400-500 more tanks repairable. And on top of that there hundreds more in reserve ie 3472-(the number used in Poland). Question is, why so few tanks available for the campaign of 1940? One interesting source I found: Fritz Hahn Waffen und Geheimwaffen des deutschen Heeres 1933-1945 Losses until October 10th total 792 Pz I-320 Pz II-259 Pz III-40 Pz IV-76 Pz 35t-77 Pz Bef III-13 Pz bef 38t-7 Pz 38t-na Pz Bef other types-na But these numbers do not take into account most command tanks as well as many units. 5 Panzer division is not counted amongst others. In one place I found these numbers and Pz Bef other types had 34 lost tanks.
thank you, maybe at one point. Main issue is, that the views are rather limited and lately I have to really (since April 2017) focus on getting views, because the ad money is getting really low. Also I am not particularly happy making operational videos. Although, I might find enough time to develop a format that is more suitable and improved.
@ Military History Visualised. 06:49 I try to understand Panzer III relatively high losses. in my opinion 1) German command used them against more difficult targets (big bunkers etc) or fire of Polish defenders was more concentrated on Panzer III as potentially more dangerous than I and II...
There were no big bunkers. Area around Wizna had some, but they were very few and not really big. Use of Armata Przeciwpancerna Wz 36 and outstanding Karabin Prezeciwpancerny WZ.35 (Ur) did it.
Very old video I know, however - the high PIII losses may be related to it being designed as anti-tank vehicle, and while Poland had no bigger Panzer Units than a battalion the tanks used were able to destroy to Panzer IIIs.
Were the Panzer III's pressed forward more into the forward edge of the battle area because they were newer, and therefore experienced more losses as a percentage of the PZRIII force?
As to Pz III losses: Due to german military doctrine from 1935 on, the Pz III was meant to be the Tank to fight other Tanks, while the PZ IV was meant o do the support against soft and/or stationary targets. Therefore, the units fully or at least adequately equiped with Pz III's where the ones to be employed where the most polish tanks where to be excepted. So they faced not only the most enemy tanks, but also the polish troops equipped with more then normal anti-tank weapons as these units were the firstgrade units of the polish military at the time.
i heard form veterans. that the Germans often used panzer III as if they where infantry tanks early in the war driving them directly into enemy lines to try and break entrenched infantry. this left them open to attacks by infantry with grenades , explodes and fire bombs
Comrade Slane Naw Vickers Mark E (single and twin turrets) and their own version the 7TP (with both types of turrets as well). The T-26 was a Russian varient of the Mark E tho (which also had the single and twin turret versions). The Poles also had converted a bunch of their TK3 and TKS tankettes for AT abilities. I think thry had more Renault FTs than R35s.
Polish tanks used in significant numbers were: Polish 7 Tp (PT-7); it was a 9.9 ton development of Vickers E 6 tons with Polish version of Bofors 37 mm AT and the Polish Gundlach's telescope -- not all had radios, but all were to be eventually equipped with radios -- lock of money in pre--World War Two Poland was a huge issue. Second most numerous true tanks deployed were the French R 35's viewed by the Poles as inferior to the 7 Tp and after the Polish Campaign'1939 viewed as inferior to the obsolete Vickers E 6 Tons as well. 3rd most numerous true tanks were the Vickers E 6tons. 4th most numerous tanks, but only about half was used as tanks by the Poles, were Renault FT serving with the Polish training companies. The most numerous armored vehicles were tankettes, but the only handful was built "re--equipped" with 20 mm AT cannon. The term "re--equipped" used by the Polish military was not exactly correct. The Poles simply used extra parts availible from the previous productions of teh tankettes. Poles also build some armored cars.
Die relativ hohen Verluste von Panzerkampfwagen III würde ich damit erklären, dass die wenigen mittelschweren Panzer stehts als Feuerwehr und im Angriffsschwerpunkt an forderster Front eingesetzt werden. Aber hat sich noch kein Militärhistoriker Gedanken gemacht und nach den konkreten Einzelfällen von Panzerverlusten recherchiert?
Highest losses were among the Pz I and Pz II, your percentages for Pz III are only high because your numbers are small, at such small numbers it's not good to think of percentages as indicative, only an accidental loss of 2-3 more Pz IIIs bumps your data one way or another. As a physicist dealing with statistics I would not recommend using statistical analysis on small numbers and would not use percentages on sets of tens. The main armor at the time was the Pz III with the Pz IV having only a secondary role as infantry support tank. After the heavy losses of Pz I and II, the Pz III had to step up and be the stopgap for engaging everything the Pz I and II failed at, and that is why it was taking such high losses.
I was wondering of anyone knows anything on the bakelit stocks? When were they used? If you could tell me the Month as well as the year I would be very happy.
I quess the panzer III loses were linked to the their placment. They were dispersed at german foces and i quess they might be used as ,,placeholders'' (It is not a quite good translation but by placeholders i mean places where polsih forces has stronger defence and the pz II and I could not pierce through) and that migh explain their loses.
the Panzer III's were meant to be more of a break trough thank, note that the armor was distributed more evenly across the hull unlike the pz. 35, pz.38, and the pz. IV, which had most of there armor protection at the front, and comparatively poor side and rear armor tho that of the pz. III. It was more common to see the pz. III's at the front of a armored push, or in the enemy's lines, this would make them come into range of the enemy first, and more likely to have enemies on its flank, attacking it from multiple directions. sorry i don't remember my sources for this, but it is something I remember from some where.
Could you talk about the future of the blitzkrieg? how countries might implemented it into their own tactics (post WWII) and how much it has influenced future warfare?
Could it be pzkw 3 was more reliable so they were used more or was it the units they were assigned to ,were used more.? I understand that many tankers preferred the 3 to the 4. Interesting. Who fought more the infantry? And were the infantry really supporting the tanks? I don't know. Was this really the first time Germany got to try out its new ideas? Or were they kinda improvising?
about panzer III - i think it is a statistical blunder. since there are so few panzer III even a single battle with 10 destroyed panzer IIIs can tilt the ratio
I think you might be able to draw more conclusion if one was to break down the type of Pnz III variants fielded and the losses sustained under each variant. I know the early A-C variants were incredibly under armored for example. A lot of these variants probably were knocked out by Polish infantry throwing Kielbasa sausages.
Panzer 3 was used as the main battle tank whereby they got support with Panzer II and Panzer I preferably over infantry. Panzer iv was used as a breakthrough tank supported by its low-velocity gun of 75mm to take out strong points. This I believe resulted in the high number of Panzer III losses.
I know you made a video on the organization of the panzer division. Can you make a video on the organization of a late war panzer division as in how it was adapted to less and less tanks being available and how the they were used defensively?
It might be necessary to identify which divisions had the high PZ III losses. With the Poles fielding 2 separate armored brigades, which were deployed against the German Armored formations. They fought delaying actions from prepared positions before retreating to their next regrouping point so they could have accounted for the difference... the Polish armour with their 20mm to 47mm cannon could take on the Pz IIIA's and B's. So, since we can know the operational areas for the two Polish armoured brigades, we could compare that to divisional losses to see if that was part of the story. Having said all of this, the Polish were deploying 75mm field guns and ATR's in a defensive war so it is also entirely possible that the Pz III's were simply being prioritized as targets.
a motorized brigade was basically 2 companies of motorized infantry and three of tanks or tankettes. Though significantly smaller than the late war armoured divisions, they were proportionately similar to them as they had 12 tank companies (Squadrons) and 15 infantry companies. The two motorized brigades, the Warsaw Brigade and the 10 Motorized Brigade, were the only units within which the Polish tanks were found and they were utilized against german armoured units. The Vickers and TP Tanks as well as the 20mm armed Tankettes were able to handle the Pzkw II's and the Pzkw III A, B & C but were no match for the Pzkw IIID and PzkwIV's. Accounts from those units indicate they gave as good as they got when going up against the German Armour. But since they had no way to replace lost vehicles, the losses were deeply felt.
Re Panzer III loss statistics, after browsing Polish forums I'd say there are at least two factors: 1) Panzer stats overall don't include the 5 Panzer Div., as their 1939 materials burnt in the Potsdam archive fire of 1945 (cf. www.deutsche-digitale-bibliothek.de/item/O6L363YAJSCS7DGSEJJOGIZYKWZHAK5L). That division supposedly had only 3 Pkfw III (in the 15 reg.). If that Division were included in the stats, loss percentages would be greater for other tank types. 2) Panzer III was indeed the workhorse of those units that had them, and at the same time was easy to knock out due to weak armor.
No source, but perhaps they had the Pz IIIs leading attacks, hence getting put in the greatest danger. Much like how IS-2s would go in first, or Sherman Firefly.
Military History Visualized I am interested in subtitling your videos to Spanish, it would be much easier if you provide the video script as in previous videos.
Perhaps your question regarding the high loses to the Panzer III is answered in the video: the main gun didn't have the range that say,the Panzer IV had, so had to come in closer to enemy positions. When that happened, as the video states,the tanks were not as effective against anti-tank guns and dug in infantry with anti-tank rifles. Just a thought.
I would say the 30% loss rate of the Panzer 3 can be explained this way. Being the toughest and more available option this machine surely would have been sent towards the most dangerous parts of the battlefields (like your anti tank gun examample) over any other tanks they had, explaining the high losses. The Panzer 4 being as powerful and scarce as it was surly was held back in reserve. I like to think of them as the triarii in Fall Weiss.
I guess that the Panzer III was used to fight and break through the most well defended positions because of its good armor (at that time) and the strong weapon, so the losses were higher.
Basically I think it was the the Panzer III was the best they had to offer at the time meaning they'd be placed at the 'speartip' of any assault being the first to get shot at and enter action and as mentioned in another comment polish anti-tank weaponry was able to penetrate the hull of the Panzer III with relative ease
I suspect the Panzer 3s were either at the forefront, pushed into roles for which they were poorly suited, or into roles where they were poorly supported, and as a result suffered higher relative losses.
If i had to take an educated guess as to why the pz III loss ratio was higher than the pz IV & others fielded, I would say it probably had something to do with battlefield tactics and formations on a platoon by platoon level, perhaps the pz III's moved into more daring forward positions while the pz IV with it's short 75mm stayed in the rear for support(camper!). Does that make any sense? Like I said, I'm only guessing.
Also, the distribution of different panzer types and the threat level of each target engaged, when & where during the campaign also likely had an impact on losses. Sometimes it's a matter of luck. The captured polish vehicles (pz 35 & 38) might have been spared losses because they weren't available at the bloody start of the campaign, the pz IV's had a high survival rate as well perhaps because of their thin distribution among each division. Again, I'm just guessing here, the devil is in the details.
The Panxers IIIs were mostly in 19th Corp Commanded by Guderian who specially requested them. 19th corps suffered three times the casualties of any other corps and 43% of all army group North's casualties. Which is interesting as he faced only Polish reservists for the entire campaign. Perhaps this accounts for the high Panzer III losses. They were killed by Polish weekend warriors. Guderian: Panzer Pioneer Or Myth Maker?
Do you know anything about the Polish tanks the Germans faced. I read that the polish 7TP could pierce the armor of any German tank at the time even the Panzer IV. I also wonder if you could do a video about technology the Germans took from countries they conquered such as the Czech Panzer 35 and 38 and the Polish 7TP and Gundlach Periscope.
The 7TP was a very small part of Poland's military power. A Vickers light tank (the "Six Tonner"), built under license, the 7TP was the same basic tank as the Soviet Red Army's T26. Although most variants were dual turreted, armed with machine guns only, the late version, armed with a Bofors 37mm medium velocity gun, was the technological equal of anything that Germany could field against it. Not many were in service in Sept 1939. Most of Poland's Armored Vehicles were TK and TKS tankettes of limited tactical use. A very few of these were upgunned with a 20mm cannon just prior to the invasion. As for the contemporary Panzer IV version (Ausf E), it had very thin armor-30mm on the glacis and 15mm on the sides-equal to that of a mid war armored car. Those Panzer IV vehicles were meant to provide high angle HE support, much like the StuG III, but were technologically more complex (because of the rotating turret), and slightly more tactically flexible. Armored operations philosophy was very new in Poland and not altogether evolved into a coherent doctrine. Moreover, the German "Juggernaut" was not very modern, being, in the main, supported by horse drawn artillery. The novel use of the tactical support bomber (Stuka and Hs 123) as pinpoint artillery vastly improved German Schwerpunkt striking power and were, perhaps, more useful overall than all the tanks in the operation combined. In addition, the ruse whereby the German dreadnaught SMS Schleswig-Holstein "happened" to be in Westerplatte at the right time, aided the German assault on the city immensely by providing on site super heavy artillery.
Hi William, you have mistaken some numbers :) Total number of produced 7TP tanks is ca. 132, 108 of them were single-turret version with high velocity (800 m/s) Bofors tank gun.
Huh. I thought that the early ones were brought up to single turret standard after market. Thanks for catching my mistake! And I must've misremembered the gun, too, automatically thinking it was an L45. That's what I get for slow unpacking after a major move. I'm working off the top of my head in some things. I better hold myself to a higher standard in future.
As far as I know, the 7TP operated in 2 tank battalions, one of which was formed in Warsaw during the Campaign. There were also a couple of companies of modified Vickers 6 toners with the medium velocity 3 pounder QF gun, which were attached to the 10th mechanised brigade, which seems to be Polands only fully motorised unit. These are the guys in the long black leather coats (precaution against oil stains) and wearing German WW1 helmets. They seem to have done very well and were deployed in the south. They held back German forces enabling many Polish units to cross the Romanian border (and then onto France). This might be a unit worth making a video on.
Great videos! This is an ongoing conflict, so it's maybe worth waiting a bit, but I'd be fascinated to hear your thoughts on the rise and fall of ISIS, why they were so effective, and why they've collapsed so much recently. Either way, great channel!
I would assume the panzer3 Losses were due to inadiquote Suspension design and thus changes between early models, the severe Lack frontal armor of the early models, also the intersection of concentration on fire by the enemy and concentration of firepower by the Germans. If I'm going to bust through your lines I'm putting my panzer 3's in the front line as they are my best tank overall. If I am on the receiving end, I'm aiming at the first tanks I see this panzer 3's took the brunt of the anti tank fire.
Great video as usual! Thanks! I recall playing Squad Leader in high school, and we always wondered why the short barrel 75MM Panzer IV. Was there a cost reason for the choice or was the short barrel not all that different from the long barrel at that time? Thanks again for your hard work. :)
Short-barrelled guns had lower chamber and barrel pressures, which meant the shells could have thinner walls and thus carry larger explosive charges. The Soviets noticed this too -- when they switched the T-34's 76mm gun to one with better armour penetration, they noted that the new gun actually had less effective HE/fragmentation shells. Same thing with the Sherman's 75mm and 76nmm guns -- almost all Sherman units in WW2 kept at least some 75mm tanks even in the most 76mm-dominated units (for instance, one 75mm tank per platoon or a platoon of 75mm tanks per company) since the 75mm gun's HE shells werr significantly more effective against soft targets. On the other hand, there's also the factor that the Pzkpfw IV was designed in the mid-1930s when most tanks had thin armour, and shells from the short 75mm gun were often still powerful enough to punch through the less well-armoured vehicles they met in 1939-41 (such as the TKS and British light tanks).
I have a theory. As you said, Pz.IV was very valuable to Invading force due to their guns. They were probably more conservative with using them - unlike Pz.III. Poles probably noticed threat of Pz.IV early on and tried to eliminate them as priority. Pz III. and Pz. IV look very much alike, especially from afar (and front). Results? - Pz III. being eliminated first and foremost.
If you like what you see, consider supporting me on Patreon, every single $ helps: patreon.com/mhv/
If you want to know more about how the Panzerwaffe performed in Poland, check out this video: ruclips.net/video/_1BmJ_GF97w/видео.html
I'm just at minute 2 and I can see an improvement in aesthetics. (In my opinion) it makes the presentation more pleasant, bravo!
@4:38 The steam-like "Achievement unlocked" gave me a good smile. I love your humour!
thanks, yeah, I got a bit "bored" with my old design and since I think my script-writing had reached a new level around Operation Olympic & Rommel, I thought I put some "Schwerpunkt" on the visuals now. Since they are quite time-consuming they weren't previous possible.
great work!
you should consider updating the graphics comparison on your patreon since there's been a HUGE jump in quality since Aug 2016
Military History Visualized Hey, I just wanted to point out a mistranslation in many of your videos. You keep saying "suspectable" instead of "susceptible". That first word doesn't exist in English, but apparently a literal translation would be "verdachtig". The second one, "susceptible" is the word you're looking for. That one translates to "anfallig".
There are some other weird translations, but this is the one you do most often, so I just wanted to point it out. Keep making great videos!!!
About the strategic choice of the Polish commander, I recently read a Google book about it, it was a political choice which he knew was poor.
He had to defend the whole western border to reassure the government and the western population of Poland, also so that France and the United Kingdom would not have an excuse to not intervene as the Polish could be regarded as unwilling to fight against the Germans.
He, however, only assigned lighter and less experienced divisions to the least relevant areas, and as we well know now, neither France nor the United Kingdom turned out to have any interest to actually do anything about Germany.
@Lynex why did the french retreat?
@Lynex the French army wasn't forced to withdraw from the Saar. They just didn't know what to do. Thank God the French command was swept away in June.
Jao Jao untenable position likely and france’s manpower shortage was acute already and everyone knew what was gonna happen next
Not to mention the Arm de la air (some Frenchie is gonna blast me for that) could not hope to even defend against the Luftwaffe let alone commit an incursion into germany
Lynex slightly off Denmark wasn’t invaded for a springboard it was invaded simultaneously, also the mining operation didn’t trigger the Norway invasion, in fact both groups, Task Force 2 and HMS Glowworm apart of the mining operation ran into each other
@@IanHutchings_KTF The French advance halted because the tank's fuel tankers were all horse drawn and was failing to keep up. They also advanced way ahead of their heavy artillery cover, which couldn't keep up. French heavy artillery was mainly drawn by oxen. The French army wasn't equipped for mobile warfare.
I will rely on Polish books "PzKpfw III Ausf. A-D" and "PzKpfw III Aufs. E-H " by Janusz Ledwoch (ISBN 9788372193537 and 9788372193759).
According to him 33-34 PzKpfw III Ausf E took part in fights against Poland. The rest were older variants A-D. E variant suffered from reliability issues (faulty gearbox) and roughly 1/3 of them couldn't take part in combat to full extent. Out of 26 tanks lost only 3 were of E variant (9% of all Ausf E tanks). A-D models had thin armour so it might be a good explanation why they suffered quite high losses. Ledwoch also gave some information about distribution of those tanks amongst various units. 1. Panzer-Division had 26 Ausf A-D tanks (20 in the 1St Regiment and 6 in 2nd Regiment) and it lost 11 of them. As far as I know this division was part of 10th Army and it was one of main units sent towards Warsaw so those tanks were used against main Polish units defending the city. Since those tanks had guns capable of firing HE shells they were more likely to be used at the spearhead of the assault. Combined with weak armour this would mean high losses. 2.Panzer-Division had 6 Ausf. B-C tanks. This unit took part in fights in Souther Poland- they fought against Polish 10th Motorized Cavalry Brigade, one of few Polish units equipped with tanks (Vickers E in this case). 5. Panzer Division had 3 Ausf D tanks, 10. Panzer Division had 3 B and C tanks. Ledwoch also mentioned that amongst 26 lost tanks 7 were not completely destroyed but they were damaged beyond repair and had to be written off.
Such a high percentange of total losses of Panzer III during September campaign are often explained by the fact that they were deployed as a spearhead of attacking units. Notice that none of Pz-Bef III were lost completly, 13 of those were damaged but all of them repaired after campaign - so the tank with almost the same armour as ordinary PzIII but deployed in a different way did not suffered such a losses.
Oh btw according to sources I am familiar with amount of PzIII used in Poland was closer to 98 rather than 87 and was deployed as follows:
1 Pz. Rgt. - 20
2 Pz. Rgt. - 6
3 Pz. Rgt. - 3
4 Pz. Rgt. - 3
5 Pz. Rgt. - 3
6 Pz. Rgt. - 3
7 Pz. Rgt. - 3
8 Pz. Rgt. - 3
15 Pz. Rgt - 3
I/10 Pz. Rgt - 3
I/ Pz. Lehr Rgt. - 37 (aufs. E)
Schliesslehrgang - 11
well, I guess the last one means "Schiesslehrgang", sounds more like a training unit and it would be exactly that 11. I skipped the number of the "Ersatzheer" (Replacement Army) and those were according to my sources 11. So yeah, technically the "Feldheer" and the "Ersatzheer" would make up all tanks, but I don't know how many of the "Ersatzheer" were used, thus I stated in the video tanks in the field army in Poland in this way I am still correct :) Since I have no data on the "Ersatzheer", of course some of the losses might be from the Ersatzheer too, but I would say that level of accuracy is a bit too crazy for RUclips videos.
Oh yes, my bad, I added extra "l" (excuse me but my knowledge of german is rudimentary at best and I did not noticed it visually but I should coz at least I know what "schiessen" means). Yes, it was an training unit which was deployed in Poland campaign and I must correct myself once again: I listed all 11 Pz. III which was at Schesslergang disposal but according to Jentz only 4 of them was used in this campaign. This unit composition was as follows:
8 * Pz.. I
10 * Pz. II
4 * Pz. III
Ted SCSI that's pretty much the conclusion i came up with too. Pz III's moved to daring forward positions, while pz IV's with their short 75mm guns stayed back as artillery support. It would be interesting to see individual platoon formations & battlefield tactics battle per battle throughout the Polish campaign to clarify this.
Byialystock would be a bad guide though, Byoweestock would be much closer to the Polish pronunciation.
You have to laugh at RUclips algorithm, the "Up Next" suggested video is Wolter's World, "Visiting Poland - The Don'ts of Poland". Maybe invasion with a panzer army is one of those don'ts?
That'S definitely a DO.
Or did the Wehrmacht freeze to death at the gates of Warsaw...? ;P
You must be kidding. I can only attribute your comment either to parody, post-Soviet ultra-nationalism or delusion.
Better not. Poland might again not be there, later.
Speaking of which: while I don't think it is meaningful talking about Poland's prowess vs. the Wehrmacht, one has to admit that your attack from Kahlenberg indeed taught those Moors a lesson. Well done on that. ...Even though HRE infantry already had fought their way to the Turkish command hill and were slowly turning the stalemate to a Muslim meat grinder.... So the greatest cavalry charge inhuman history being only a win-more move does take away from its tactical value, but not from its sheer grandeur - so, still, kudos to those brave chicken knights. Or what are these feathers for?!
Germany can into Poland. Seriously, though, Poland tried to mobilize France to invade Germany, jointly, before the invasion of Poland. France didn't go for it, and the rest is history. Poland fought as well as they could, but there is only so much you can do against superior numbers of modernized war machines and well trained soldiers.
I love the attention to proper sourcing
Top quality, reliably sourced content as usual. You run a great channel, thank you for the hard work!
Around half--a--dozen Polish generals left the Polish military in protest of the "self--promotion" of Rydz--Smigly to the rank of the Marshal of Poland and the head of the Polish armed forces. In spite of the flaws as a commander-in-chief, Rydz-Smigly did start necessarily slow modernization of the Polish armed forces in 1935.
The Polish deployment of the forces to every corner of Western Poland was caused by the slow curving of Czechoslovakia. It ended up curved out of existence. However, Marshal Rydz--Smigly did overdo it. General Władysław Bortnowski in charge of the army defending the Polish (Kashubian) Corridor as soon as the plan was drawn two weeks before the war, even before his army got mobilized and deployed, started sending requests to the Polish High Command to allow him to move two infantry divisions and one cavalry brigade out of the very corridor. Bortnowski was right. All the above--mentioned units were destroyed and he lost 1/3rd of his army. Bortnowski has to be noted for subordinating himself to another general in charge of another army, General Kutrzeba and making the Battle of Bzura (Kutno) possible. Coming back to the issue of defending every inch of Poland. Getting 15,000 of the Coastal Defence infantry stuck by Gdynia sea port was another unwise decision of Rydz-Smigly. The defensive works in the area could be manned by no more than 5,000 soldiers. The biggest mistake of Rydz-Smigly was not securing the path of retreat into the Romanian Bridgehead as well as not defending the very bridgehead from the Soviet aggression. When the Poles could not afford to fight both the Germans and the Soviets, they could have gotten ready to defend a relatively small area of the very bridgehead. The before mentioned two infantry division, one cavalry brigade, and 10,000 Coastal Defence infantry could have been deployed at Piotrkow Trybunalski, Tomaszow Lubelski, Lviv (Lwow), and Stryj. Polish Minister Beck argued before the very war that Lviv should become a secondary capital of Poland and a military stronghold in the case of war. As to the Western Allies, they should have not allowed for the Czechoslovak equipment and the military factories to fall into the Germans hands. Poland definitely could have used the Czechoslovak tank and armored car factories as well as 244 Czechoslovak LT-35 tanks as well as 27 LT-34 tanks as well as 40 tankettes and other military equipment.
Agreed 100%.
Well Czechoslovakia could use them at first. And it also could produce hundreds of another ones in the year between 38 and 39. The production lines were ready, it was all stopped after Munich and later started again by Germans. Poland sadly played its role in destruction of Czechoslovakia, and the question is, did they have a map in Polish general staf and ministry of foreign affairs, when they sided Germans in 1938 Czechoslovak crisis?
@@tomfu6210 they didn't sided per se. Confilct over this region was overall dating 1919, when Czechoslovakia used the fact, that whole Polish army was fighting soviets and take Zaolzie without a fight. Polish side did kinda the same in 1938. Was it correct move? Not much, but at the same time, it's hard to blame polish governmant for it.
Well done sir - also the refusal by Beck et. al. to create arms caches throughout the country to provide for guerilla/partisan actions. There was an effort but it was not started until early Summer 1939
5:34
OH SHIT WE GOT EFFECTS NOW
4:38 "Achievement Unlocked: Wall of Text" LMAO
wow. each episode I watch, I'm more impressed. thank you.
"But lets be honest here. This is clearly not complicated enough."
Question about the Polish tanks: Poland had around 120 single--turret 9.9 ton 7Tp or PT-7 tanks that were the development of Vickers E 6 tons (by 1939, twin turret version was used only in the training companies). The Polish tanks had Bofors 37 MM AT and Polish Gundlach's telescope*. Moreover, Poles operated around 50 Renault R.35 which they judged inferior to the Polish design before the Polish Defensive War in 1939, and inferior to even Vickers E 6 tons after the very campaign. Poles used a couple dozen of Vickers E 6 tons as well. In addition, the Poles used FT-17 either as tanks or in barricades. The most numerous Polish armoured vehicle was a tankette (over 500), but only a couple dozen was built with 20 mm 38FK antitank autocannon. In addition, the Poles used some armoured cars.*--Known in Great Britain as Vickers Tank Periscope MK.IV and in the Soviet Union as MK-4 and used by other armies. It was allowing 360--degree view without the need to turn around.
Question repeated itself. Kudos. Great answer!
That's not a question.
I think I now understand why people stopped putting machine guns on tanks as their main armament. Tanks want to deal with things that threaten them first, and It'd never occurred to me that a machine gun is a poor weapon to attack field guns or anti-tank riffles. A very interesting video. Now I'm curious about the evolution of tanks through the war.
They still use machineguns today though. The Abrams for example has a coax and a loader's crew-served 7.62mm 240 with a .50 cal M2 for the tank commander's crew-served weapon.
True, but notice I specified "Main Armament". The Panzer I's were armed only with machines guns. British called wwi tanks "male" or "female" depending on whether they had a heavy gun or not.
Yes I did notice you had specified that, but I suppose I should've prefaced my statement with; "Going on personal experience as a former armor crewmen, I would say that tanks do tend to use their MGs over maingun more often. Granted, again, this is speaking from personal experience, but one of the crew-served MGs would usually engage/suppress enemy infantry with AT weaponry as modern main-gun rounds for tanks are more for the purpose of defeating enemy armor and light-armor vehicles. However vs mass infantry the Abrams does use canister rounds and HEAT still works against say infantry-AT hiding in a building, but in terms of anti-infantry purposes the crew-served and coax MG are used. What you pointed out however is very true, and also if you think about it, the main armament of a tank seems to have been the final deciding factor as to what is and is not a tank amongst various AFVs. Something like a PzI would be more akin to a modern IFV than a proper tank, to put this more into perspective.
I strongly disagree in your statement that the PzKfw I would be more akin to a modern IFV than a proper tank. The PzKfw I only carried a crew of two, and had no space to carry additional personnel under armor, whereas a modern IFV can carry both its crew (driver, TC, gunner and loader) along with additional dismountable passengers. Depending upon what you want to do with the vehicle, a tank (such as the PzKfw I) armed only with machine guns can be very useful. The PzKfw I was designed as a training tank, and it was only used in combat simply because the army expanded faster then tank production could keep up. But the British had some good success in battle during the 1930's (and possibly during the 1920's as well) using tanks armed only with machine guns against poorly armed tribal warriors in Africa and/or India.
Ulric Kessler... well, keep in mind that, even early in the war, infatry used some improvised close combat weapons agains tanks. A determined infatryman with a Molotov cockteil, a satchel charge or even with an iron bar, could disable a tank. Later on they had various magnetic mines, Panzerfaust and Panzerschrenk. That's why, although main armament grew bigger and more powerful, MG's were still a must for any tank. You can't clear the infantry attacking at close range your mate's tank by shooting at them with a 75 mm projectile.
Remember what's happened to Elefants at Kursk. They had no MG's :)
@ Military History Visualised thank you for remembering 01 September 1939. 78th anniversary.
It is possible that the high losses of the Panzer III were caused by the German tactic of deploying heavier tanks in front of the lighter tanks during an attack against the Polish artillery positions. The Panzer IV's frontal armour was more capable of surviving hits from the Polish Bofors 37 mm cannons and 75 field guns shooting stop--a-gap anti-tank rounds. Also, the Polish anti-tank rifle's bullet was designed to disintegrate and transfer the energy causing spalling inside the tank. The fact that they could penetrate the armour of the Panzer I and Panzer II was not optimal.
Have you considered making an in-depth video about the Battle of Wizna? Also theatrically referred to as "The Polish Battle of Thermopylae"?
I think your meticulous attention to facts and detail on this specific battle would result in a very interesting video about the effects and end results of that battle in particular.
or Battle of Mokra
Very good insight on military history keep up the good work.
For the Panzer III, check out armour thickness vs AT rounds. The Pzr 3 was used like IV but had weaker armour, so got banged up more.
Note: it was shorter ranged
I stand to be corrected.
Gianluca Borg It could be a matter of armor as you say, in addition I think that since the Panzer III was intended with an anti-tank role rather than infantry suport as the Panzer IV, it may have faced the few polish tanks that were operational as well as anti-tank artillery
The armor of Panzer IVs and IIIs that operated in Poland was the same, both 30mm thick. The higher losses happened because it was used more against other tanks and AT guns, while the Panzer IV was more of a infantry support tank and faced AT rifles rather thank AT guns. That would also explain why the Panzer 38t had higher losses than the Panzer IV.
As I said, I stood to be corrected. as I was clearly mistaken on the armour fact however, I was correct on it being used as the Panzer kampfwagen IV while it's statistically not suitable for its role. Worthy to be noted is that the T-34 was feared more by Pzr 4's not as much 3's for 3 was more limited
Gianluca Borg next time, for clarity, I suggest you say "Edit: I stand to.."
Oh boy September 1st
*activates Goosestep*
BAPTIZED IN FIRE 40 TO 1
Da_Bonus_Duck -that's 7th to 10th tho-
Da_Bonus_Duck PRIMO VICTORIA
SPIRITS OF SPARTANS DEATH AND GLORY
I know. The Panzer III were used in the spearhead often, followed by pz38, pzII and pzIV, while the pzI and pz35 were involed rather rarely in the heavy battles. The reason is that PanzerIII were already considered to be the best german tanks with the best crews and were used extensively and in the most dangerous advances into enemy territory.
a lot is sometimes made of the Polish pattern 35 AT rifle, but in reality it wasn't widely distributed amongst the infantry units and they often lacked proper training with the weapon, so it couldn't really turn the tide in any significant way
The purpose of relocating Polish forces alongside whole western border was to show to France and Britain that 'we are defending' because those countries were obligated to help Poland only when it will defend against agressors. Rydz-Śmigły wanted those countries to have 'no doubt' about it. That is why he made such a stupid decision instead of relocating the army on the Wehrmacht's main offensive directions. It was political decision. Unfortunetly France and Britain never came. You should mention that this was political decision in the video. For now, it looks like he was pretty stupid commander which is not true.
Rydz-Smigly was a stupid commander and is responsible for Poland losing the campaign in two weeks.
Great video. Very interesting.
T(h)anks for another enjoyable video.
For a future topic: How about a video about tank development and design by various nations during the inter war period. Both from a technological PoV and from the PoV of combat doctrine at the time (ok, that's more like 2 videos)?
Answer: The 3's were more often at the front of the van as they were more capable for multirole as well as 'schwerpunkt' shock power at the point of attack to force a breakthrough... they were also more reliable and as they presented a thin armored side or rear target for echeloned Polish troops while they broke through and fanned out - they tended to have a higher casualty rate.
The Panzer III in Poland and France aswell were typically at the front of the Zugkiel (Platoon Wedge) it which the more armored tanks were at the front and tanks like Panzer II were on the flanks of the Kiel. And the Befehl Panzer was second to the left of the first Panzer. Panzer would advance in the form of the Catapilliar-like (Raupenartig) when moving up during attack and being covered at all times.
Source: Panzer Tactics - German Small-Unit Armor Tactics In WW2 by Wolfgang Schneider
Peter Jolley that and a lot of early models still used 15mm armor thickness on all sides especially in Poland which later models would have the armor thickness thickened
I disagree strongly with your assertion that the Panzer I and Panzer II were intended only for training.
If this had been the case, why were they constructed with real homogeneous armour plate? Why not build them out of mild steel, which was much cheaper? Like the first 2 Neubaufahrzeug prototypes?
In actual fact, the German Army initially ordered 150 training versions of the Panzer I, followed by 1,000 of the combat-ready version (the Ausf. A). Only 15 out of 150 training versions (without turrets) were actually delivered before production switched to the Ausf A, of which 800 were built. Finally 684 of the improved Ausf B model were built, along with 200+ of the command tank version.
It was a superior fighting machine to the Italian and Polish tankettes that were its contemporaries.
The Panzer II was also a combat-ready tank. Even the 125 pre-series, the Ausf a, b, and c.
The Wehrmacht interpretation of a training tank is one that is considered unfit for combat. The Panzer I did not fall into that category, as it was sent into combat in Spain, Poland, Norway, the Low Countries, France, the Balkans, North Africa and Russia, up until late 1941. The Panzer II was still in service in 1945.
@Ricardo VS they would if nothing else would be available for production by the time the war started. Panzer I was definitely intended for combat. It was a stopgap yes but you don't order 3000 tanks with RHA for training purposes only.
Ricardo VS Do you know what a Tankette is? Or is that just another word for tank to you? This is the 1930s where the most you can get for fast firing tanks is a 20mm cannon. You also didn’t disprove why they would use Rolled Homogenous Steel over Mild Steel if they were training tanks.
Ricardo VS lol okay Guderian, any more myths you want to peddle?
‘Test’ tanks that blasted their way through Poland and France, oh by the way as expensively as they could’ve made a tank they did, the Panzer 1 had nickel enriched armor, with fully functional turrets! “You don’t need those for drivers training” -An author I forget, to put the final nail in the coffin of this ridiculous statement, why would the “Training” tank use the MG13ks, and not the MG34s, like every tank after? Surely it would be better to train the crew with the expected machine gun, but no, the Panzer 1 had 13ks, because they were super reliable compared to the 34, which made them good in the machine gun only tank for......combat
Panzer-Division Kempf lose almost all of there Panzers III and have the bigest loses of all German Panzer Division in 1939. It can be answer, why number of PzIII was so big
It can be answer, why they mourderd Polish PoW. The massacre might have been a revenge for the Battle of Mława, which cost the Germans an entire infantry division, and where Panzer Division Kempf lost 72 tanks in spite of using Polish civilians as human shields chased in front of their tanks.
Interesting I know that the panzer III suffered from mechanical issues during the campaign. In the book History of the Panzerwaffe volume 1 1939-1942. It gives a after action report of 1st leichte division on the technical state of panzerregiment 11. These are the percentage of each type of tank that are considered operational as of 4th of October 1939. 80% of Pzkpfw II, 44% of Pzkpfw III, 75% of Pzkpfw IV. It doesn't show the amount of Pzkpfw Is that are operational assuming that they had some In the regiment.
Susceptible is pronounced "Sus-sept-eh-bal." Thoroughly enjoyed this video as well as all of your other work. Looking forward to more excellent content. Thank you for all that you do!
"Suspectibal" was amusing though! :)
Invasion of half of the Poland, do not forget it. Dozens of tanks and amrored vehicles were distroyed by polish armored trains, witch did suprisingly well (according to book "Polskie pociągi pancerne 1939"). Also lets not forget about PZL 23 Karaś bomber and 133 (fiew?) 7-TP tank (37mm canon). So not only anti tank rifle and guns.
Tony chill. Poland took on two countries at the same time. They even destroyed the Russians before in the early 1920's.
Tony Butthurt Wehraboo?
Christian Changer lol why Butthurt?! 😂
Good stuff. Thanks.
I'm liking the new graphic style. :) It makes it more engaging visually.
id say they probably positioned the pz3's forward, meaning that they were first hit, the pzIV's allowed to counter battery, and smaller lighter tanks like the 38t not used up front because hey, they're lightly armored.
From other panzer books I read, panzer III was assigned to be the tank destroyer in the early phase of the war, due to its higher velocity armor piercing shells, which also means it would have higher rates to get knocked out. Early Panzer IV with short barrel was used for infantry support facing less opponent tanks.
I imagine that the panzer III was the "main battle tank" in terms of modernity and effectiveness. So it follows that they would have been put to more extensive use against in the front line engagements at the points of schwerpunkt etc. The logic being if you have 1000 panzer IVs and 150 panthers then likely you would be using the panthers whenever possible at the the decisive points. thus if they are engaged more there is more likely a chance of damage and more likely to find significant enemy resistance at those decisive points.
The majority of Panzer IIIs that saw service in Poland were B, C, and D models. B and C had 15mm armor all around. The D model received an upgrade to 30 mm armor in the turret (most specifically the new commanders cupola), but hull armor remained 15 mm. The E model was upgraded to 30 mm all around the hull, but the Germans had limited numbers of these. The introduction of the E model allowed them to increase the tanks in the 1st platoon of the light tank companies from 3 to 5 during the Polish campaign. However, all of these models were plagued with problems beyond just the inadequate armor and firepower. A-D models were all very limited production runs that ended quickly due to suspension issues the Germans were aware of before the Polish campaign. The E didnt just introduce the 30 mm armor, however. It's increased weight from 16 to 19 tons necessitated what wound up being the final suspension revision/conversion to torsion bar and 6 road wheels, a new engine and transmission, and a new manufacturer. Previous models had only been manufactured by Daimler-Benz, while Henschel and MAN were brought in to increase production of the E. These changes led to a lot of issues early on with the transmissions in particular. [Tucker-Jones, A. (2017). Panzer III: Hitler's Beast of Burden. Pen and Sword.]
I wouldnt put too much stock into the theory that Germans used the Panzer III more aggressively/inappropriately than they did the Panzer IIs leading to increase loss rate. There wouldnt have been any reason for them to say "Hold on, anti tank gun up ahead. Panzer IIs hold back, we need the Panzer IIIs lack of increased armor and inability to fire HE shells to take this thing out." All of the B-D models were pulled from action immediately following the Polish campaign, though a handful of Ds were temporarily put back into service again in northern France. It is much more likely that increased rate of mechanical failure over the II- combined with similarly ineffective armor, increased size, and less mobility, led to the increased loss rate of Panzer IIIs.
Can you make a video about how the land lease program contributed to the Soviet victory on the eastern front? Always interested to know if Soviet could still win without the support of its allied.
Lend Lease supplied a small ammount of wepons and vehicles compared to what the USSR could produce for itself.
Jeff Kardos Jr. What about resources?
Wars aren't won with weapons alone. Russia only produced about 60,000 trucks 41-45. No need to produce more, as the USA provided about 360,000 and that allowed for large scale, deep penetrations and encirclements. Add to this thousands of locomotives and rolling stock not to mention food and things like rail tracks with which to build and repair railways essential to war. Red Army was largely fed by America. Add to this telephone wire and phones, medical tools and medicines etc and it's a good question, I've asked him the same recently. Does he think Russia could have reached Berlin first without it? I have my doubts but Russia obviously played its importance down post war and unfortunately with that its a subject I myself would like to find a really good book on but have yet to do so but I know it was very substantial and did make a big difference. Not to diminish Soviet efforts. Despite the war its impressive that they also managed to lay down thousands of miles of new track, cultivate ten of thousands of previously uncultivated land, open new mines, evacuate millions of wagons worth of machinery and the staff to operate them but aid, it allowed them to concentrate on producing tanks and guns and might well have saved them from starvation. Workers do not work and soldiers fight when starving to death.
The USA supplied 500,000 tons of a new surface hardened rail-line to replace tracks damaged by the Germans as they abandoned territory. Half the aluminum in Soviet aircraft was supplied under lend lease. Canada supplied brass to replace production lost due to the invasion and used in everything from brass bushes in T'38's to bullet casings. All 50,000 amphibious vehicles where US made.
6:40 based on your discussion with Chieftain a very interesting data would be not just the Panzers lost but the Panzer crews lost. Was this just equipment or was this trained manpower that was hard to replace? What was the percentage of crews successfully bailing out? That would be very interesting to see.
This is what i could find regards p3 losses:
According Panzertruppen. The Complete Guide to the Employment Creation & Combat Force of Germany's Tank 1939-45, the units with a large number of Pz Kw III were: the PR 1 with 20 tanks (some Ausf E.?) And the Pz. Lehr Abt. with 37 (most of them Ausf. E?).
Now according Panzertruppen. The Complete Guide to the Employment Creation & Combat Force of Germany's Tank 1939-45. the losses, due to failures or enemy action, for the Pz Kw III of all models (period from 1 till 25 Sep 1939) reported by each army amounted to:
3. AOK: 5 tanks; 10. AOK: 11 tanks; 14. AOK: 3 tanks. A total of 19 tanks. The division which lost more Pz Kw III was the 1. Pz with 11 tanks.
But little later he explained that after a reasessment the total losses of Pz KW III were 26 tanks.
I might be mistaken but i remember that the German Army used many of early Panzer III variants in the Polish Campaign (Ausf. A-D). These versions were developed to try out new suspension types and not intended for combat. These vehicles had very thin armor but lacked the heavy gun of early PzKpfw IV. Since they were test versions, there might also have been a number of mechanical failures with the suspensions? It would explain why the "final" version, Ausf E., had a completely different suspension than the previous 4 versions.
I actually studied Military history under Robert Citino, he's a wonderful professor and his work in military history is beyond measure. I whole heartily recommend all his books, especially those about the Arab-Israeli Conflicts.
I remember reading that field commanders preferred using the Mark III over that of other AFVs because of their superior maneuverability, size and reliability. It could be a case of overuse that decimated their numbers.
I seem to recall Von Luck talking about the invasion of Poland. I believe he said something about the Pz 3s having to do most of the heavy lifting as the 1s and 2s were quite ineffective. I know Guderien didn't like the Czech tanks as the steel they were made from was quite brittle compared to the German made rolled steel.
The Panzer III models used in the Polish Campaign were earlier production models from Panzer III Ausf. A to D I believe. Many of them had severe reliability problems due to experimental technological attempts, such as the unrefined torsion bar suspension. Tanksarchives has great in-depth evaluations of these earlier models. Links:
tankarchives.blogspot.fi/2017/01/pzkpfwiii-ausf-christie-german-style.html
tankarchives.blogspot.fi/2017/01/pzkpfwiii-ausf-b-d.html
well, unreliability could explain a few losses, but unless they were exploding it doesn't explain the high number of total write-offs, since for the Germans that basically meant a destroyed tank.
Total write-offs can be explained by the troops stripping tanks for parts and as these earlier models used parts which were not compatible with later models, the earlier ones would be just written off and be done with them. For example Panzer III A was only fielded during Polish Campaign and didn't see action after that.
I wonder if the losses in P3 were due to the fact that they were relatively numerous and would be used more readily as they were considered the best option. The P1 & 2s were already known to be vulnerable so you send in your best available tank, the P3? Just a thought.
I dont understad why to use the chasis of a same vehicle for making diferent vehicles with the same role. For example,the Panzer 38(t) to the Hetzer and the Marder III. Explanation?
4:40
Der Panzer II C hat standardmäßig 15mm Frontpanzerung. Allerdings gab es C und selbst A und B Modelle mit 30mm Frontpanzerung. Theoretisch sollte es sogar Erprobungsserien-Fahrzeuge mit 30mm Panzerung geben. Bis zur Ausf. C war die verstärkte Frontpanzerung ein Nachtrüstungssatz/Umbau für fertige Modelle. Ab Modell D und E war die stärkere Frontpanzerung serienmäßig. Mit Modell F wurde die Panzerung auf 35mm verstärkt.
Der Panzer II wurde ursprünglich als Landwirtschaftlicher Schlepper 100 (LAS100) produziert. Erprobungsserien waren mit kleinen Buchstaben versehen.
Serie 1/LAS100 bestand aus 3 Produktionsreihen
Fahrgestellnr 20001 - 20025, benannt SdKfz 121 Ausführung a1
Fahrgestellnr 20026 - 20050 Ausführung a2
Fahrgestellnr 20051 - 20100 Ausführung a3
Serie 2/LAS100 Ausführung b, Fahrgestellnr 21001 - 21100
Serie 3/LAS100 Ausführung c, Endserie der Entwicklung, Fahrgestellnr 21101 - 23000 (Enthält die folgenden Produktionsserien 4/LAS100 Ausführung A, 5/LAS100 Ausführung B, 6/LAS100 Ausführung C, 7/LAS100 Ausführung F)
Alle Fahrzeuge der Ausführungen a1-3, b, c, A, B, C waren standardmäßig mit der leichten ca 15mm Panzerung versehen. Allerdings wurde bereits ~1936 während der Produktionsreihe 2/LAS100 Ausf. b der Nachrüstungsauftrag auf 30mm Frontpanzerung für LAS100 Modelle erteilt.
Ausführungen D und E, bez. Schnellkampfwagen, verwendeten andere Fahrgestelle, hießen daher 8/LAS 138 in der Produktion und waren von Werks her bereits mit der 30mm Panzerung versehen.
Quelle u.A.: "Die Deutschen Panzer 1926 - 1945" Senger und Etterlin
danke!! nice, das Buch hatte damals und die haben auch ein Buch über die Geschütze geschrieben... und guter Verlag. Werd ich mir wohl nochmal bestellen müssen.
np, hab beide Bücher hier. Die technischen Details sind großartig, wobei das Panzerbuch deutlich mehr ins Detail geht, gerade was Produktion und Entwicklung angeht.
Good stuff!
Specific targeting of panzer III makes sense. Especially when the German army had a lack of panzer IV to deal with PAK. When you lack the weapon best suited to take out an enemy position, you select the second best option. In this case this would have been the panzer III, so the Germans would send their panzer III out to destroy the PAK and the Polish PAK would know the threat and specifically target the panzer III.
Polish bias confirmed. Nerf AT rifle pls.
But seriously, nice video as always. :)
1. Wich division had the most Pz III?
2. Where did it attack?
3. Who were that division's commanders?
Wow, I wanted to you to address this issue and here we are. You've read my mind.
A couple of points.
1. 3472 as total number of tanks in the German army. Where were the remaining? Training units? Were many of these types unarmed training variants? I have met the number of around 3200 before (do you know if command tanks were not counted twice?)
2. The number of write-offs seems to be the biggest mystery in the universe. We have a number of problems here:
Firstly: What period are we dealing with? I have heard a suggestion that Jentz's details only account for the write offs until 25th September. When were the decisions on write offs taken? It might be entirely possible that many tanks were classified as such only after the end of hostilities.
Secondly: What is a write off in this context? A tank that is impossible to repair or a tank that is deemed to uneconomic to repair? Perhaps the true number increased due to the latter?
3. According to sources the number of German tanks available for the invasion of France was some 200-300 less than for the invasion of Poland. Now, German industry produced probably around 900 tanks in that period which would be more than enough to cover the losses. In theory we should also have some 400-500 more tanks repairable. And on top of that there hundreds more in reserve ie 3472-(the number used in Poland). Question is, why so few tanks available for the campaign of 1940?
One interesting source I found:
Fritz Hahn Waffen und Geheimwaffen des deutschen Heeres 1933-1945
Losses until October 10th total 792
Pz I-320
Pz II-259
Pz III-40
Pz IV-76
Pz 35t-77
Pz Bef III-13
Pz bef 38t-7
Pz 38t-na
Pz Bef other types-na
But these numbers do not take into account most command tanks as well as many units. 5 Panzer division is not counted amongst others. In one place I found these numbers and Pz Bef other types had 34 lost tanks.
Given we had two excellent videos about Fall Weiss and Weserubung, will we have one on Fall Gelb?
thank you, maybe at one point. Main issue is, that the views are rather limited and lately I have to really (since April 2017) focus on getting views, because the ad money is getting really low. Also I am not particularly happy making operational videos. Although, I might find enough time to develop a format that is more suitable and improved.
Understandable, thank you for the response
@ Military History Visualised. 06:49 I try to understand Panzer III relatively high losses. in my opinion 1) German command used them against more difficult targets (big bunkers etc) or fire of Polish defenders was more concentrated on Panzer III as potentially more dangerous than I and II...
There were no big bunkers. Area around Wizna had some, but they were very few and not really big. Use of Armata Przeciwpancerna Wz 36 and outstanding Karabin Prezeciwpancerny WZ.35 (Ur) did it.
Very old video I know, however - the high PIII losses may be related to it being designed as anti-tank vehicle, and while Poland had no bigger Panzer Units than a battalion the tanks used were able to destroy to Panzer IIIs.
Were the Panzer III's pressed forward more into the forward edge of the battle area because they were newer, and therefore experienced more losses as a percentage of the PZRIII force?
As to Pz III losses:
Due to german military doctrine from 1935 on, the Pz III was meant to be the Tank to fight other Tanks, while the PZ IV was meant o do the support against soft and/or stationary targets. Therefore, the units fully or at least adequately equiped with Pz III's where the ones to be employed where the most polish tanks where to be excepted. So they faced not only the most enemy tanks, but also the polish troops equipped with more then normal anti-tank weapons as these units were the firstgrade units of the polish military at the time.
i heard form veterans. that the Germans often used panzer III as if they where infantry tanks early in the war driving them directly into enemy lines to try and break entrenched infantry. this left them open to attacks by infantry with grenades , explodes and fire bombs
"Achievement unlocked"! Love it! ;)
Mabey something about polish panzer forces?
at one point surely.
Comrade Slane Naw Vickers Mark E (single and twin turrets) and their own version the 7TP (with both types of turrets as well). The T-26 was a Russian varient of the Mark E tho (which also had the single and twin turret versions). The Poles also had converted a bunch of their TK3 and TKS tankettes for AT abilities. I think thry had more Renault FTs than R35s.
Comrade Slane Haha I'm just being picky :p
Comrade Slane: The Vickers 6-ton tanks?
Polish tanks used in significant numbers were: Polish 7 Tp (PT-7); it was a 9.9 ton development of Vickers E 6 tons with Polish version of Bofors 37 mm AT and the Polish Gundlach's telescope -- not all had radios, but all were to be eventually equipped with radios -- lock of money in pre--World War Two Poland was a huge issue. Second most numerous true tanks deployed were the French R 35's viewed by the Poles as inferior to the 7 Tp and after the Polish Campaign'1939 viewed as inferior to the obsolete Vickers E 6 Tons as well. 3rd most numerous true tanks were the Vickers E 6tons. 4th most numerous tanks, but only about half was used as tanks by the Poles, were Renault FT serving with the Polish training companies. The most numerous armored vehicles were tankettes, but the only handful was built "re--equipped" with 20 mm AT cannon. The term "re--equipped" used by the Polish military was not exactly correct. The Poles simply used extra parts availible from the previous productions of teh tankettes. Poles also build some armored cars.
Die relativ hohen Verluste von Panzerkampfwagen III würde ich damit erklären, dass die wenigen mittelschweren Panzer stehts als Feuerwehr und im Angriffsschwerpunkt an forderster Front eingesetzt werden. Aber hat sich noch kein Militärhistoriker Gedanken gemacht und nach den konkreten Einzelfällen von Panzerverlusten recherchiert?
Highest losses were among the Pz I and Pz II, your percentages for Pz III are only high because your numbers are small, at such small numbers it's not good to think of percentages as indicative, only an accidental loss of 2-3 more Pz IIIs bumps your data one way or another. As a physicist dealing with statistics I would not recommend using statistical analysis on small numbers and would not use percentages on sets of tens.
The main armor at the time was the Pz III with the Pz IV having only a secondary role as infantry support tank. After the heavy losses of Pz I and II, the Pz III had to step up and be the stopgap for engaging everything the Pz I and II failed at, and that is why it was taking such high losses.
My thoughts about why so many Pz. III were lost was because they were mostly early models, whitch meant that their frontal armor is from 15 to 18mm.
Nice Achievement unlocked
Good one
I was wondering of anyone knows anything on the bakelit stocks? When were they used? If you could tell me the Month as well as the year I would be very happy.
I quess the panzer III loses were linked to the their placment. They were dispersed at german foces and i quess they might be used as ,,placeholders'' (It is not a quite good translation but by placeholders i mean places where polsih forces has stronger defence and the pz II and I could not pierce through) and that migh explain their loses.
the Panzer III's were meant to be more of a break trough thank, note that the armor was distributed more evenly across the hull unlike the pz. 35, pz.38, and the pz. IV, which had most of there armor protection at the front, and comparatively poor side and rear armor tho that of the pz. III. It was more common to see the pz. III's at the front of a armored push, or in the enemy's lines, this would make them come into range of the enemy first, and more likely to have enemies on its flank, attacking it from multiple directions. sorry i don't remember my sources for this, but it is something I remember from some where.
Could you talk about the future of the blitzkrieg? how countries might implemented it into their own tactics (post WWII) and how much it has influenced future warfare?
Could it be pzkw 3 was more reliable so they were used more or was it the units they were assigned to ,were used more.? I understand that many tankers preferred the 3 to the 4. Interesting. Who fought more the infantry? And were the infantry really supporting the tanks? I don't know. Was this really the first time Germany got to try out its new ideas? Or were they kinda improvising?
about panzer III - i think it is a statistical blunder. since there are so few panzer III even a single battle with 10 destroyed panzer IIIs can tilt the ratio
Do a study on the 1980's "Toyota War" specifically on the combat effectiveness of Toyota Trucks as Motorized Infantry Vehicles.
I think you might be able to draw more conclusion if one was to break down the type of Pnz III variants fielded and the losses sustained under each variant. I know the early A-C variants were incredibly under armored for example.
A lot of these variants probably were knocked out by Polish infantry throwing Kielbasa sausages.
Panzer 3 was used as the main battle tank whereby they got support with Panzer II and Panzer I preferably over infantry. Panzer iv was used as a breakthrough tank supported by its low-velocity gun of 75mm to take out strong points. This I believe resulted in the high number of Panzer III losses.
I know you made a video on the organization of the panzer division. Can you make a video on the organization of a late war panzer division as in how it was adapted to less and less tanks being available and how the they were used defensively?
It might be necessary to identify which divisions had the high PZ III losses. With the Poles fielding 2 separate armored brigades, which were deployed against the German Armored formations. They fought delaying actions from prepared positions before retreating to their next regrouping point so they could have accounted for the difference... the Polish armour with their 20mm to 47mm cannon could take on the Pz IIIA's and B's. So, since we can know the operational areas for the two Polish armoured brigades, we could compare that to divisional losses to see if that was part of the story. Having said all of this, the Polish were deploying 75mm field guns and ATR's in a defensive war so it is also entirely possible that the Pz III's were simply being prioritized as targets.
Motorized brigades that were supported by a few tanks.
a motorized brigade was basically 2 companies of motorized infantry and three of tanks or tankettes. Though significantly smaller than the late war armoured divisions, they were proportionately similar to them as they had 12 tank companies (Squadrons) and 15 infantry companies. The two motorized brigades, the Warsaw Brigade and the 10 Motorized Brigade, were the only units within which the Polish tanks were found and they were utilized against german armoured units. The Vickers and TP Tanks as well as the 20mm armed Tankettes were able to handle the Pzkw II's and the Pzkw III A, B & C but were no match for the Pzkw IIID and PzkwIV's.
Accounts from those units indicate they gave as good as they got when going up against the German Armour. But since they had no way to replace lost vehicles, the losses were deeply felt.
Re Panzer III loss statistics, after browsing Polish forums I'd say there are at least two factors:
1) Panzer stats overall don't include the 5 Panzer Div., as their 1939 materials burnt in the Potsdam archive fire of 1945 (cf. www.deutsche-digitale-bibliothek.de/item/O6L363YAJSCS7DGSEJJOGIZYKWZHAK5L). That division supposedly had only 3 Pkfw III (in the 15 reg.). If that Division were included in the stats, loss percentages would be greater for other tank types.
2) Panzer III was indeed the workhorse of those units that had them, and at the same time was easy to knock out due to weak armor.
No source, but perhaps they had the Pz IIIs leading attacks, hence getting put in the greatest danger. Much like how IS-2s would go in first, or Sherman Firefly.
Btw, are all the 674 tanks knocked-out due to enemy action or any other cause is included?
Military History Visualized
I am interested in subtitling your videos to Spanish, it would be much easier if you provide the video script as in previous videos.
Nice informative vid. But on question i still have, Is the spitfire still gliding??
;)
That's for Bismarck to answer. ;)
Perhaps your question regarding the high loses to the Panzer III is answered in the video: the main gun didn't have the range that say,the Panzer IV had, so had to come in closer to enemy positions. When that happened, as the video states,the tanks were not as effective against anti-tank guns and dug in infantry with anti-tank rifles.
Just a thought.
I would say the 30% loss rate of the Panzer 3 can be explained this way. Being the toughest and more available option this machine surely would have been sent towards the most dangerous parts of the battlefields (like your anti tank gun examample) over any other tanks they had, explaining the high losses. The Panzer 4 being as powerful and scarce as it was surly was held back in reserve. I like to think of them as the triarii in Fall Weiss.
I guess that the Panzer III was used to fight and break through the most well defended positions because of its good armor (at that time) and the strong weapon, so the losses were higher.
Basically I think it was the the Panzer III was the best they had to offer at the time meaning they'd be placed at the 'speartip' of any assault being the first to get shot at and enter action and as mentioned in another comment polish anti-tank weaponry was able to penetrate the hull of the Panzer III with relative ease
I suspect the Panzer 3s were either at the forefront, pushed into roles for which they were poorly suited, or into roles where they were poorly supported, and as a result suffered higher relative losses.
I love the little jokes you sneak into your videos. "Achievement Unlocked: Wall of Text."
If i had to take an educated guess as to why the pz III loss ratio was higher than the pz IV & others fielded, I would say it probably had something to do with battlefield tactics and formations on a platoon by platoon level, perhaps the pz III's moved into more daring forward positions while the pz IV with it's short 75mm stayed in the rear for support(camper!).
Does that make any sense? Like I said, I'm only guessing.
Also, the distribution of different panzer types and the threat level of each target engaged, when & where during the campaign also likely had an impact on losses. Sometimes it's a matter of luck. The captured polish vehicles (pz 35 & 38) might have been spared losses because they weren't available at the bloody start of the campaign, the pz IV's had a high survival rate as well perhaps because of their thin distribution among each division.
Again, I'm just guessing here, the devil is in the details.
The Panxers IIIs were mostly in 19th Corp Commanded by Guderian who specially requested them. 19th corps suffered three times the casualties of any other corps and 43% of all army group North's casualties. Which is interesting as he faced only Polish reservists for the entire campaign. Perhaps this accounts for the high Panzer III losses. They were killed by Polish weekend warriors.
Guderian: Panzer Pioneer Or Myth Maker?
Do you know anything about the Polish tanks the Germans faced. I read that the polish 7TP could pierce the armor of any German tank at the time even the Panzer IV.
I also wonder if you could do a video about technology the Germans took from countries they conquered such as the Czech Panzer 35 and 38 and the Polish 7TP and Gundlach Periscope.
LEGOSHADOWSPARTAN P4 at the time didn't have much armor.
The 7TP was a very small part of Poland's military power. A Vickers light tank (the "Six Tonner"), built under license, the 7TP was the same basic tank as the Soviet Red Army's T26. Although most variants were dual turreted, armed with machine guns only, the late version, armed with a Bofors 37mm medium velocity gun, was the technological equal of anything that Germany could field against it. Not many were in service in Sept 1939.
Most of Poland's Armored Vehicles were TK and TKS tankettes of limited tactical use. A very few of these were upgunned with a 20mm cannon just prior to the invasion.
As for the contemporary Panzer IV version (Ausf E), it had very thin armor-30mm on the glacis and 15mm on the sides-equal to that of a mid war armored car. Those Panzer IV vehicles were meant to provide high angle HE support, much like the StuG III, but were technologically more complex (because of the rotating turret), and slightly more tactically flexible.
Armored operations philosophy was very new in Poland and not altogether evolved into a coherent doctrine. Moreover, the German "Juggernaut" was not very modern, being, in the main, supported by horse drawn artillery. The novel use of the tactical support bomber (Stuka and Hs 123) as pinpoint artillery vastly improved German Schwerpunkt striking power and were, perhaps, more useful overall than all the tanks in the operation combined. In addition, the ruse whereby the German dreadnaught SMS Schleswig-Holstein "happened" to be in Westerplatte at the right time, aided the German assault on the city immensely by providing on site super heavy artillery.
Hi William, you have mistaken some numbers :) Total number of produced 7TP tanks is ca. 132, 108 of them were single-turret version with high velocity (800 m/s) Bofors tank gun.
Huh. I thought that the early ones were brought up to single turret standard after market. Thanks for catching my mistake! And I must've misremembered the gun, too, automatically thinking it was an L45. That's what I get for slow unpacking after a major move. I'm working off the top of my head in some things. I better hold myself to a higher standard in future.
As far as I know, the 7TP operated in 2 tank battalions, one of which was formed in Warsaw during the Campaign.
There were also a couple of companies of modified Vickers 6 toners with the medium velocity 3 pounder QF gun, which were attached to the 10th mechanised brigade, which seems to be Polands only fully motorised unit. These are the guys in the long black leather coats (precaution against oil stains) and wearing German WW1 helmets. They seem to have done very well and were deployed in the south. They held back German forces enabling many Polish units to cross the Romanian border (and then onto France). This might be a unit worth making a video on.
Great videos! This is an ongoing conflict, so it's maybe worth waiting a bit, but I'd be fascinated to hear your thoughts on the rise and fall of ISIS, why they were so effective, and why they've collapsed so much recently. Either way, great channel!
How do you make those technical images of the tanks and planes? Also, great channel and awesome content.
Very interesting
I would assume the panzer3
Losses were due to inadiquote
Suspension design and thus changes between early models, the severe
Lack frontal armor of the early models, also the intersection of concentration on fire by the enemy and concentration of firepower by the Germans. If I'm going to bust through your lines I'm putting my panzer 3's in the front line as they are my best tank overall. If I am on the receiving end, I'm aiming at the first tanks I see this panzer 3's took the brunt of the anti tank fire.
Great video as usual! Thanks! I recall playing Squad Leader in high school, and we always wondered why the short barrel 75MM Panzer IV. Was there a cost reason for the choice or was the short barrel not all that different from the long barrel at that time? Thanks again for your hard work. :)
Short-barrelled guns had lower chamber and barrel pressures, which meant the shells could have thinner walls and thus carry larger explosive charges. The Soviets noticed this too -- when they switched the T-34's 76mm gun to one with better armour penetration, they noted that the new gun actually had less effective HE/fragmentation shells. Same thing with the Sherman's 75mm and 76nmm guns -- almost all Sherman units in WW2 kept at least some 75mm tanks even in the most 76mm-dominated units (for instance, one 75mm tank per platoon or a platoon of 75mm tanks per company) since the 75mm gun's HE shells werr significantly more effective against soft targets.
On the other hand, there's also the factor that the Pzkpfw IV was designed in the mid-1930s when most tanks had thin armour, and shells from the short 75mm gun were often still powerful enough to punch through the less well-armoured vehicles they met in 1939-41 (such as the TKS and British light tanks).
I have a theory. As you said, Pz.IV was very valuable to Invading force due to their guns. They were probably more conservative with using them - unlike Pz.III. Poles probably noticed threat of Pz.IV early on and tried to eliminate them as priority. Pz III. and Pz. IV look very much alike, especially from afar (and front). Results? - Pz III. being eliminated first and foremost.
Could you do this research also about the attack on France in 1940? Many thanks in advance...